9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication. During the course of verification of stock, the officers noticed certain excess stock of finished goods as follows: Sr. No. Particulars of goods Stock as per Book (MT) Qty found in stock verification (MT) Qty of surplus stock (MT) 1. Angle/Channel/ Joist 7364.512 8358.592 (+)994.08 2. Bloom/Billet (Rolling Mill) 3894.873 4053.910 (+)159.037 3. Bloom/Billet (SMS) 944.481 1076.560 (+)132.079 The goods found in excess were seized under the belief that the same were intended to be cleared without payment of duty. After completion of investigation, a show cause notice dated 31.12.2012 was issued to the appellant proposing confiscation of the seized goods. The adjudicating authority, vide the impugned order, confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng upon them to show cause as to why: (a) MS Billet/Bloom weighing 291.116 MT and MS Angle / Channel / Joist / Beam weighing 994.080 MT seized on 14.07.2017 should not be confiscated under Rule 25 of the Rules. (b) Penalty should not be imposed under Rule 25. (viii) The appellants in their reply to the notice pointed out as under: (a) The production of the day was being recorded in the morning, on the next working day. The production of 116 MT billets/blooms was manufactured on 12.07.2012, till morning of 13.07.2012, and would have been entered in the records, but for the officer's visit. The balance of 16 MT may be on account of mistake committed during stock taking. (b) As far as the angles, channels, joist and beam are concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded in the statutory books. It is claimed by the appellant that out of this, 116 MT was manufactured on 12.07.2012, but failed to be accounted. The practice of the appellant was to enter the production once a day in the morning. Balance 16 MT has been claimed to be on account of mistakes in stock taking. 6. We find from record that the quantity of 132 MT is roughly one day's production and the explanation is that this would have been accounted but for the relevant documents being withdrawn by the officers. After appreciating the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that non accountal of this quantity of finished goods can be condemned in the light of the explanation offered by the appellant. In any case, goods were found with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
